Intimate partner violence in long-term relationships of older adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Increases in the proportion of older people in Canada have focussed needed attention on the issues and concerns for this group. One prevalent issue is the nature of experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) for older adults. These experiences have been overlooked in the domestic violence theory and research where the focus has been on the needs of younger women and also within the elder abuse research and literature where the emphasis has been placed on aging (dementia) and caregiving. As a result, less is known about the experiences of older adults in intimate relationships and how the power and control dynamics manifest and shift within the context of long-term relationships. How do these dynamics change or remain the same in intimate relationships of older adults? How do the victims resist the violent and controlling tactics of perpetrators and how does this resistance influence and shift the nature of power and control in these intimate relationships? Using techniques borrowed from grounded theory, this study was undertaken with the aim of exploring power and control dynamics in intimate relationships of older adults in long-term abusive relationships. The findings demonstrated by the victims reported that their partners used different forms of violent tactics in the early years of these intimate relationships and typically used more nonviolent coercive controlling tactics in later years. In some of the relationships, control continued past the period of separation and divorce. Victims presented themselves as active agents and demonstrated resistance that was more overt in the early years, which became more subtle and discreet as these relationships matured. For victims, resisting their partners’ efforts to control them provided them with some momentary power in the relationship; however, the participants’ control was mostly situation-specific and temporary. For victims who were still living with their abusive partners, resistance allowed them to set boundaries with their partners and provided them with some space of their own within their relationships to engage in activities of their choice. These boundaries, however, are under constant scrutiny by the abusive partners and although victims demonstrate resistance to assert their dignity, the overarching control continued to be with the abusive partner. Narratives also provided by the participants also demonstrated the impacts of intimate partner violence to their sense of health and well-being.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».